Good afternoon, everyone. Let me begin by thanking the Annenberg
Foundation Trust, and everyone here at beauty -- beautiful Sunnylands and the
people of Rancho Mirage for their incredible hospitality these past two
days. I have hosted foreign leaders here before. Itís quite another to
host leaders from 10 nations at the same time. And I want to thank
everybody who helped make the summit such a success.

For 50 years, leaders and people across Southeast Asia have worked
together through ASEAN to advance their mutual security, prosperity and
dignity. For decades, the United States has been a proud partner with
ASEAN. And this summit has built on the unprecedented cooperation weíve
forged over the past seven years, as I described yesterday. This spirit
-- working together on behalf of mutual interests, in mutual respect --
guided our work over the past two days. And so I especially want to
thank my fellow leaders from the ASEAN countries for being here, for
their commitment and for the progress that weíve made together.

One of my main messages over the past two days has been the commitment
of the United States to ASEAN and its people. That commitment is and
will remain strong and enduring. With our Strategic Partnership, we
have a framework to guide our ties for decades to come.

Here at Sunnylands, we agreed to a number of key principles, including
the principle that ASEAN will continue to be central -- in fact,
indispensable -- to peace, prosperity and progress in the Asia Pacific.
When ASEAN speaks with a clear, unified voice, it can help advance
security, opportunity and human dignity not only for the more than 600
million people across ASEAN, but for people across the Asia Pacific and
around the world. And Iím pleased that, here at this summit, ASEANís
strong voice allowed us to make progress on multiple fronts.

First, we agreed to do more together to encourage the entrepreneurship
and innovation that are at the heart of modern, competitive economies.
We had an excellent discussion with a number of pioneering business
leaders who reiterated the recipe for attracting trade and investment --
rule of law, transparency, protection of intellectual property,
efficient customs, modern infrastructure, e-commerce and the free flow
of information, support for small and medium-sized businesses, and
perhaps most importantly, investment in people -- investment in strong
schools to educate and train the next generation.

Around the table, there was widespread recognition that this is the path
ASEAN countries need to continue on. As they do, it will create even
more opportunities for trade and investment between the U.S. and ASEAN
countries.

I affirmed our strong support for the ASEAN Community and pledged that
the United States will continue to be a partner in ASEANís efforts to
integrate economies and reduce barriers to trade and investment. Iím
also announcing a new initiative -- U.S.-ASEAN Connect -- a network of
hubs across the region to better coordinate our economic engagement and
connect more of our entrepreneurs, investors and businesses with each
other.

Weíre also doing more to help aspiring innovators in the region learn
English, the international language of business. And I reiterated that
the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- which includes four ASEAN members --
can advance economic integration across ASEAN and set stronger rules for
trade throughout the Asia Pacific. To that end, weíve launched a new
effort to help all ASEAN countries understand the key elements of TPP,
as well as the reforms that could eventually lead to them joining.

Second, with regard to security, the United States and ASEAN are
reaffirming our strong commitment to a regional order where
international rules and norms -- and the rights of all nations, large
and small -- are upheld. We discussed the need for tangible steps in
the South China Sea to lower tensions, including a halt to further
reclamation, new construction and militarization of disputed areas.
Freedom of navigation must be upheld and lawful commerce should not be
impeded.

I reiterated that the United States will continue to fly, sail, and
operate wherever international law allows, and we will support the right
of all countries to do the same. We will continue to help our allies
and partners strengthen their maritime capabilities. And we discussed
how any disputes between claimants in the region must be resolved
peacefully, through legal means, such as the upcoming arbitration ruling
under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Seas, which the parties are
obligated to respect and abide by.

Third, I made it clear that the United States will continue to stand
with those across Southeast Asia who are working to advance rule of law,
good governance, accountable institutions and the universal human rights
of all people. We continue to encourage a return to civilian rule in
Thailand. We will sustain our engagement with the people of Myanmar as
a new president is selected, and as they work to implement the ceasefire
agreement and move forward with national reconciliation.

Across the region, weíll continue to stand with citizens and civil
society and defend their freedom of speech, of assembly and of the
press. No one, including those in political opposition, should ever be
detained or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind. That only
stymies progress, only makes it harder for countries to truly thrive and
prosper.

And finally, the United States and ASEAN are doing more to deal with
transnational challenges together. I offered our assistance to help
ASEAN counties better leverage Interpol data to prevent the flow of
foreign terrorist fighters. We agree that implementing the Paris
climate change agreement, including helping developing countries adapt
to and mitigate the impacts of climate change, will be critical and it
will enable them to leap ahead to new and affordable clean energy.

As we pursue our sustainable development goals, weíre launching a new
competition -- an innovation challenge to encourage students across
ASEAN to develop new solutions to boost agriculture. Weíre moving ahead
with our Global Health Security Agenda to prevent future epidemics, and
I pledged additional U.S. assistance to help ASEAN combat the horror of
human trafficking.

So, to sum up, I believe this summit has put the U.S.-ASEAN partnership
on a new trajectory that will carry us to even greater heights in the
decades ahead. Americaís foreign policy rebalance to the Asia Pacific,
including Southeast Asia, will continue to be a foreign policy priority
of my presidency. I look forward to visiting Vietnam for the first time
in May and to becoming the first U.S. President to visit Laos when it
hosts the East Asia Summit in September.

And Iím confident that whoever the next President may be will build on
the foundation that weíve laid, because thereís strong, sustained,
bipartisan support for American engagement in the Asia Pacific region.
And through our Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative, our investment
in young people, in their business success, and civil society and
grassroots leaders across the region I believe will further bind us
together in a spirit of partnership and friendship for many years to
come.

So, with that, let me take a few questions. And I'm going to start with
Darlene Superville of the Associated Press. Where is Darlene? There
she is.

Question: What recourse do you have
if Leader McConnell blocks a vote on your Supreme Court nominee? And do
you think that if you choose someone moderate enough that Republicans
might change course and schedule a vote? And as you consider that
choice and who to nominate, what qualities are important to you, and is
diversity among them? Thank you.

President Obama: First of all, I
want to reiterate heartfelt condolences to the Scalia family.
Obviously, Justice Scalia and I had different political orientations and
probably would have disagreed on the outcome of certain cases. But
thereís no doubt that he was a giant on the Supreme Court, helped to
shape the legal landscape. He was, by all accounts, a good friend and
loved his family deeply. And so itís important, before we rush into the
all the politics of this, to take stock of somebody who made enormous
contributions to the United States. And we are grateful not only for his
service but for his familyís service.

The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now.
When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the President of the
United States is to nominate someone. The Senate is to consider that
nomination, and either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee
is elevated to the Supreme Court.

Historically, this has not been viewed as a question. Thereís no
unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years -- thatís
not in the constitutional text. Iím amused when I hear people who claim
to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a
whole series of provisions that are not there. There is more than
enough time for the Senate to consider in a thoughtful way the record of
a nominee that I present and to make a decision.

And with respect to our process, weíre going to do the same thing that
we did with respect to Justice Kaganís nomination and Justice
Sotomayorís nomination. Weíre going to find somebody who is has an
outstanding legal mind, somebody who cares deeply about our democracy
and cares about rule of law. Thereís not going to be any particular
position on a particular issue that determines whether or not I nominate
them, but Iím going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified
for the seat and any fair-minded person -- even somebody who disagreed
with my politics -- would say would serve with honor and integrity on
the Court.

Now, part of the problem that we have here is, is weíve almost gotten
accustomed to how obstructionist the Senate has become when it comes to
nominations. Iíve got 14 nominations that have been pending that were
unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee -- so Republicans and
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee all agreed that they were
well-qualified for the position. And yet we canít get a vote on those
individuals.

So in some ways, this argument is just an extension of what weíve seen
in the Senate, generally -- and not just on judicial nominees.

The basic function of government requires that the President of the
United States, in his or her duties, has a team of people -- Cabinet
secretaries, assistant secretaries -- that can carry out the basic
functions of government. It requires -- the Constitution requires that
we appoint judges so that they can carry out their functions as a
separate branch of government.

And the fact that weíve almost grown accustomed to a situation that is
almost unprecedented, where every nomination is contested, everything is
blocked regardless of how qualified the person is, even when thereís no
ideological objection to them, certainly where thereís no disqualifying
actions by the nominee that have surfaced -- the fact that itís that
hard, that weíre even discussing this, is I think a measure of how,
unfortunately, the venom and rancor in Washington has prevented us from
getting basic work done. This would be a good moment for us to rise
above that.

I understand the stakes. I understand the pressure that Republican
senators are, undoubtedly, under. I mean, the fact of the matter is, is
that what the issue here is, is that the Court is now divided on many
issues; this would be a deciding vote. And there are a lot of
Republican senators who are going to be under a lot of pressure from
various special interests and various constituencies and many of their
voters to not let any nominee go through, no matter who I nominate. But
thatís not how the system is supposed to work. Thatís not how our
democracy is supposed to work.

And I intend to nominate in due time a very well-qualified candidate.
If we are following basic precedent, then that nominee will be presented
before the committees; the vote will be taken; and ultimately, theyíll
be confirmed. Justice Kennedy, when he was nominated by Ronald Reagan
-- in Ronald Reaganís last year in office, a vote was taken, and there
were a whole lot of Democrats who Iím sure did not agree with Justice
Kennedy on his position on a variety of issues -- but they did the right
thing; they confirmed him. And if they voted against him, they
certainly didnít mount a filibuster to block a vote from even coming up.

This is the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land. Itís the one
court where we would expect elected officials to rise above day-to-day
politics. And this will be the opportunity for senators to do their
job. Your job doesnít stop until youíre voted out or until your term
expires. I intend to do my job between now and January 20th of 2017. I
expect them to do their job as well.

All right. Letís see who weíve got here. Jeff Mason.

Question: Thank you, Mr.
President. Following up on that, should we interpret your comments just
now that you are likely to choose a moderate nominee? Would you --

President Obama: No.

Question: Okay.

President Obama: I donít know where
you found that. You shouldnít assume anything about the qualifications
of the nominee other than theyíre going to be well-qualified.

Question: All right.

President Obama: Okay.

Question: Following up, would you
consider a recess appointment if your nominee is not granted a hearing?

President Obama: I think that we
have more than enough time to go through regular order, regular
processes. I intend to nominate somebody, to present them to the
American people, to present them to the Senate. I expect them to hold
hearings. I expect there to be a vote.

Question: That means no recess
appointment?

President Obama: Full stop.

Question: And lastly, as long as
weíre doing this in a row, how do you respond to Republican criticism
that your position is undercut by the fact that you and other members of
your administration who were in the Senate at the time tried to
filibuster Judge Alito in 2006?

President Obama: Look, I think
whatís fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over
time is not historically the fault of any single party. This has become
just one more extension of politics. And there are times where folks
are in the Senate and theyíre thinking, as I just described, primarily
about, is this going to cause me problems in a primary? Is this going to
cause me problems with supporters of mine? And so people take strategic
decisions. I understand that.

But what is also true is Justice Alito is on the bench right now. I
think that, historically, if you look at it, regardless of what votes
particular senators have taken, thereís been a basic consensus, a basic
understanding, that the Supreme Court is different. And each caucus may
decide whoís going to vote where and what but that basically you let the
vote come up, and you make sure that a well-qualified candidate is able
to join the bench, even if you donít particularly agree with them. And
my expectation is, is that the same should happen here.

Now, this will be a test -- one more test -- of whether or not norms,
rules, basic fair play can function at all in Washington these days.
But I do want to point out, this is not just the Supreme Court. We have
consistently seen just a breakdown in the basic functions of government
because the Senate will not confirm well-qualified nominees even when
theyíre voted out of committee, which means that theyíre voted by both
parties without objection.

And we still have problems, because thereís a certain mindset that says
weíre just going to grind the system down to a halt, and if we donít
like the President then weíre just not going to let him make any
appointments. Weíre going to make it tougher for the administration to
do their basic job. Weíre going to make sure that ambassadors arenít
seated, even though these are critical countries and it may have an
effect on our international relations. Weíre going to make sure that
judges arenít confirmed, despite the fact that Justice Roberts, himself,
has pointed out thereís emergencies in courts around the country because
there are just not enough judges and there are too many cases, and the
system is breaking down.

So this has become a habit. And it gets worse and worse each year. And
itís not something that I have spent a huge amount of time talking
about, because, frankly, the American people, on average, theyíre more
interested in gas prices and wages and issues that touch on their
day-to-day lives in a more direct way, so it doesnít get a lot of
political attention.

But this is the Supreme Court. And itís going to get some attention.
And we have to ask ourselves as a society a fundamental question: Are
we able to still make this democracy work the way itís supposed to, the
way our Founders envisioned it? And I would challenge anyone who
purports to be adhering to the original intent of the Founders, anybody
who believes in the Constitution, coming up with a plausible rationale
as to why they would not even have a hearing for a nominee made in
accordance with the Constitution by the President of the United States
--with a year left, practically, in office. Itís pretty hard to find
that in the Constitution.

All right. Youíve gotten at least -- youíve gotten four now, Jeff.

Toluse.

Question: Thank you, Mr.
President. Two different topics -- first on Syria. Last year, when
President Putin was about to enter into Syria, you said that he was
doing so from a position of weakness and that he would only get himself
involved in a quagmire there. Now, with Aleppo about to fall, it seems
like President Putin is basically getting one of his goals, which is to
bolster Assad and to take out the rebels, which the U.S. is backing.
How do you respond to critics who say that you have been outfoxed by
Putin? And what is your plan if Aleppo does fall? Do you plan to step
up military action to help the rebels in Syria, who you have said are
key to taking on ISIS?

And then secondly, I wanted to ask you about 2016 as well.

President Obama: Okay, this is
getting to be a lot of questions here. How about -- you asked me a big
question right there. How about I just answer that one?

Question: Okay, sure.

President Obama: All right.

First of all, if you look back at the transcripts, what I said was that
Russia has been propping up Assad this entire time. The fact that Putin
finally had to send his own troops and his own aircraft and invest this
massive military operation was not a testament to a great strength; it
was a testament to the weakness of Assadís position. That if somebody
is strong, then you donít have to send in your army to prop up your
ally. They have legitimacy in their country and they are able to manage
it their self, and then you have good relations with them. You send in
your army when the horse youíre backing isnít effective. And thatís
exactly whatís happened.

Now, what I said was, is that Russia would involve itself in a
quagmire. Absolutely, it will. If thereís anybody who thinks that
somehow the fighting ends because Russia and the regime has made some
initial advances -- about three-quarters of the country is still under
control of folks other than Assad. Thatís not stopping anytime soon.

I say that, by the way, with no pleasure. This is not a contest between
me and Putin. The question is, how can we stop the suffering, stabilize
the region, stop this massive out-migration of refugees who are having
such a terrible time, end the violence, stop the bombing of schools and
hospitals and innocent civilians, stop creating a safe haven for ISIS.
And thereís nothing thatís happened over the last several weeks that
points to those issues being solved. And that is what I mean by a
quagmire.

Now, Putin may think that heís prepared to invest in a permanent
occupation of Syria with Russian military. Thatís going to be pretty
costly. Thatís going to be a big piece of business. And if you look at
the state of the Russian economy, thatís probably not the best thing for
Russia.

What would be smarter would be for Russia to work with the United States
and other parties in the international community to try to broker some
sort of political transition. Now, John Kerry, working with his Russian
counterpart, has, on paper, said that thereís going to be a cessation of
hostilities in a few days. This will test whether or not thatís
possible. Itís hard to do because thereís been a lot of bloodshed. And
if Russia continues indiscriminate bombing of the sort that weíve been
seeing, I think itís fair to say that youíre not going to see any
take-up by the opposition.

And, yes, Russia has a major military. Obviously, a bunch of rebels are
not going to be able to compete with the hardware of the second-most
powerful military in the world. But that doesnít solve the problem of
actually stabilizing Syria. And the only way to do that is to bring
about some sort of political transition.

We will see what happens over the next several days. And we will
continue to work with our partners who are focused on defeating ISIS to
also see how we can work together to try to bring about a more lasting
political solution than aerial bombardment of schools and hospitals are
going to achieve.

But itís hard. Iím under no illusions here that this is going to be
easy. A country has been shattered because Assad was willing to shatter
it, and has repeatedly missed opportunities to try to arrive at a
political transition. And Russia has been party to that entire
process. And the real question we should be asking is what is it that
Russia thinks it gains if it gets a country thatís been completely
destroyed as an ally that it now has to perpetually spend billions of
dollars to prop up? Thatís not that great a prize. Unfortunately, the
problem is, is that it has spillover effects that are impacting
everybody, and thatís what we have to focus on.

One thing that I do want to add, though -- this has not distracted us
from continuing to focus on ISIL. And we continue to press them hard
both in Iraq and Syria. That will not stop. And if we can get a
political transition in Syria, that allows us to coordinate more
effectively with not just Russia, but other countries in the region to
focus on the folks who pose the greatest direct threat to the United
States.

All right. Andrew Beatty.

Question: Thank you, Mr.
President. I wanted to ask you, first of all, whether you think that
military intervention will be necessary in Libya to dislodge the Islamic
State from Sirte? And as an extension of that, do you think that by the
end of your presidency the Islamic State will still have geographical
strongholds throughout the Middle East? And, I'm sorry, I can't resist
asking a third -- how was the stadium course? What did you shoot?

President Obama: The last, for
non-golfers, is a reference to PGA West. Very nice course; very
difficult. My score is classified.

With respect to Libya, I have been clear from the outset that we will go
after ISIS wherever it appears, the same way that we went after al Qaeda
wherever they appeared. And the testament to the fact that we are doing
that already is that we took out ISIS -- one of ISISís most prominent
leaders in Libya.

We will continue to take actions where we've got a clear operation and a
clear target in mind. And we are working with our other coalition
partners to make sure that as we see opportunities to prevent ISIS from
digging in, in Libya, we take them. At the same time, we're working
diligently with the United Nations to try to get a government in place
in Libya. And that's been a problem.

The tragedy of Libya over the last several years is Libya has a
relatively small population and a lot of oil wealth and could be really
successful. They are divided by tribal lines and ethnic lines, power
plays. There is now, I think, a recognition on the part of a broad
middle among their political leadership that it makes sense to unify so
that there is just some semblance of a state there, but extremes on
either side are still making it difficult for that state to cohere.

If we can get that done, that will be enormously helpful, because our
strong preference, as has always been the case, is to train Libyans to
fight. And the good news in Libya is, is that they don't like outsiders
coming in, telling them what to do. Thereís a whole bunch of
constituencies who are hardened fighters and don't ascribe to ISIS or
their perverted ideology. But they have to be organized and can't be
fighting each other. And so that's probably as important as anything
that we're going to be doing in Libya over the coming months.

Carol Lee.

Question: Thank you, Mr.
President. The Democratic race to replace you has gotten pretty heated
lately, and you have Hillary Clinton saying that -- or at least casting
herself as the rightful heir to your legacy and the one, the candidate
who will be the keeper of your legacy, while also saying the Bernie
Sanders has been disloyal to you. Is she right?

President Obama: Well, that's the
great thing about primaries, is everybody is trying to differentiate
themselves, when, in fact, Bernie and Hillary agree on a lot of stuff
and disagree pretty much across the board with everything the
Republicans stand for. So my hope is, is that we can let the primary
voters and caucus-goers have their say for a while, and letís see how
this thing plays itself out.

I know Hillary better than I know Bernie because she served in my
administration and she was an outstanding Secretary of State. And I
suspect that on certain issues she agrees with me more than Bernie
does. On the other hand, there may be a couple issues where Bernie
agrees with me more. I don't know. I havenít studied their positions
that closely.

Hereís what I have confidence in -- that Democratic voters believe in
certain principles. They believe in equal opportunity. They believe in
making sure that every kid in this country gets a fair shot. They
believe in making sure that economic growth is broad-based and everybody
benefits from it, and if you work hard you're not in poverty. They
believe in preserving a strong safety net through programs like Social
Security and Medicare. They believe in a foreign policy that is not
reckless, that is tough and protects the American people but doesnít
shoot before it aims. They believe in climate change. They think
science matters. They think that it's important for us to have some
basic regulations to keep our air clean and our water clean, and to make
sure that banks aren't engaging in excesses that can result in the kind
of thing that we saw in 2007 and 2008. So thereís a broad convergence
of interests around those issues.

I think what you're seeing among Democrats right now is a difference in
tactics, trying to figure out how do you actually get things done; how
do you actually operate in a political environment that's become so
polarized; how do you deal with the power of special interests, and
frankly, how do you deal with a Republican Party right now that has
moved so far to the right that it's often hard to find common ground.

And so that's, I think, the debate that's taking place right now. It's
a healthy debate. Ultimately, I will probably have an opinion on it,
based on both being a candidate of hope and change and a President whoís
got some nicks and cuts and bruises from getting stuff done over the
last seven years. But for now, I think it's important for Democratic
voters to express themselves and for the candidates to be run through
the paces.

The thing I can say unequivocally, Carol is I'm not unhappy that I am
not on the ballot.

Ron Allen, NBC.

Question: Let me continue the 2016
questions. On the Republican side -- and a lot of your guests were
probably very intrigued by the fact that thereís a candidate whoís still
winning whoís called for a ban on Muslims, and significant segments of
the population in America agree --

President Obama: ďIntriguedĒ is an
interesting way of putting it.

Question: Struck -- well, what was
their reaction? That's one of my five questions. But the point is --

President Obama: Ron, letís stick
to two.

Question: The point is, in the past
you've explained that as anger, resentment, insecurity -- economic
insecurity. The question is how much responsibility do you accept for
that reservoir of feeling in the country that's propelling that sort of
candidate? And a couple weeks ago, you told Matt Lauer that Donald
Trump would not win the presidency. Do you now think that he will not
win the nomination, as well? And what about Rubio, and what about Cruz?

President Obama: I think foreign
observers are troubled by some of the rhetoric that's been taking place
in these Republican primaries and Republican debates. I don't think
itís restricted, by the way, to Mr. Trump. I find it interesting that
everybody is focused on Trump, primarily just because he says in more
interesting ways what the other candidates are saying, as well.

So he may up the ante in anti-Muslim sentiment, but if you look at what
the other Republican candidates have said, that's pretty troubling,
too. He may express strong, anti-immigration sentiment, but you've
heard that from the other candidates, as well. You've got a candidate
who sponsored a bill -- that I supported -- to finally solve the
immigration problem, and heís running away from it as fast as he can.

They're all denying climate change. I think that's troubling to the
international community, since the science is unequivocal. And the
other countries around the world, they kind of count on the United
States being on the side of science and reason and common sense, because
they know that if the United States does not act on big problems in
smart ways, nobody will.

But this is not just Mr. Trump. Look at the statements that are being
made by the other candidates. There is not a single candidate in the
Republican primary that thinks we should do anything about climate
change; that thinks itís serious. Well, that's a problem. The rest of
the world looks at that and says, how can that be?

Iíll leave it to you to speculate on how this whole race is going to
go. I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be President. And the
reason is because I have a lot of faith in the American people, and I
think they recognize that being President is a serious job. Itís not
hosting a talk show or a reality show. Itís not promotion. Itís not
marketing.

Itís hard. And a lot of people count on us getting it right. And itís
not a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on
a given day. And sometimes it requires you making hard decisions even
when people don't like it, and doing things that are unpopular, and
standing up for people who are vulnerable but don't have some powerful
political constituency. And it requires being able to work with leaders
around the world in a way that reflects the importance of the office;
and gives people confidence that you know the facts, and you know their
names, and you know where they are on a map, and you know something
about their history. And you're not just going to play to the crowd
back home -- because they have their own crowds back home -- and you're
trying to solve problems.

And so, yes, during primaries, people vent and they express themselves.
And it seems like entertainment, and oftentimes itís reported just like
entertainment. But as you get closer, reality has a way of intruding.

And these are the folks who I have faith in, because they ultimately are
going to say whoever is standing where Iím standing right now has the
nuclear codes with them, and can order 21-year-olds into a firefight,
and have to make sure that the banking system doesn't collapse, and is
often responsible for not just the United States of America but 20 other
countries that are having big problems or falling apart and are going to
be looking for us to do something. And the American people are pretty
sensible and I think theyíll make a sensible choice in the end.